Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How to easily find out what USE flags are redundant in make.conf and package.use?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:53:46 -0400
> Michael Mol<mikemol@×××××.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Alan McKinnon
>> <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>  wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 06:36:54 -0500
>>> Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com>  wrote:
>>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 05:13:49 -0500
>>>>> Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com>    wrote:
>>> You often mention the attraction of Gentoo is you get only what you
>>> want. But, consider this; if you put flags routinely in make.conf
>>> you lose most of that benefit. You end up with the equivalent of
>>> Mandrake where you complied it yourself, not the binary distro.
>>>
>>> USE="<every possible flag enabled>" emerge something and
>>> yum install something and pretty much equivalent in terms of end
>>> result.
>> I'm actually very much in Dale's usage pattern here. If there's a
>> feature I want, and it's a globally-valid USE flag (such as, say,
>> ipv6), I put it in make.conf. If there's a feature I want, and it's
>> package-specific, it goes in package.use. If there's a feature I want,
>> it's a globally-valid USE flag, but I *don't* want it in a particular
>> package (say, X in vim), the enabler goes in make.conf, the disabler
>> goes in packages.use; for 90% of packages, I want that support.
>>
>> So that's not USE=<every possible flag enable>, that's USE=<all the
>> global flags I want enabled>.
>
>
> As with all things in life,  USE flags require intelligence, common
> sense and familiarity to use to best advantage. Not all global USE
> flags are equal or used in the same way!
>
> USE="ipv6" is mostly global and single-meaning. ipv6 support means
> just that - ipv6 support. For a daemon, that would be listen on an
> ipv6 interface and talk it back. For config tools, it's " set up
> interfaces and routes ipv6 style". It's hard to come up with a meaning
> for the flag that's outside that narrow range; it's equally hard to
> come up with a reason to use in package.use. Maybe disable it for a
> package that supports ipv6 but is known to be broken in it's support.
>
> USE="perl python" is a very different kettle of fish. While also
> global (i.e. used in a similar way by more than x number of ebuilds),
> the meaning in use can differ wildly. It can mean to build support
> for extra tools written in perl|python, or build language bindings, or
> use language bindings and possibly many things. These flags can benefit
> from being used in package.use - whereas you probably want ipv6 support
> everywhere if used, perl|python isn't used the same way.
>
> Your post indicates you already know this :-)
>
> I mentioned it to Dale to illuminate that just because a flag is
> *defined* globally doesn't mean you have to *use* it globally. And the
> reverse is also true - overlays often have flags used in many ebuilds,
> always with the same meaning (e17 is like this), but are not global in
> use.desc. My own make.conf has many of these flags.
>
> Sometimes I wish Gentoo would express these distinctions. Then I think
> about what it would take to do that, and shelf the idea :-)
>
> --
> Alan McKinnnon
> alan.mckinnon@×××××.com
>
>

I saw your point.  That's why I said I do make exceptions.  For me, I do 
whatever is easier to keep up with.  I actually went back and removed 
perl and python from make.conf so that it would basically go by the 
ebuild I guess.  When I ran emerge -uvaDN world, it wanted to rebuild 
actually nothing.  I guess I could do -perl and -python to force it to 
disable but that may cause some other issue that I'm not wanting to deal 
with.  So, I ended up with perl and python removed from make.conf.  When 
the changes you were talking about come along, I'll know it and can see 
what I need to do to get what I need.

One thing I don't like about having all the separate file in package.* 
is trying to keep up with them.  I have several files that are there 
that don't even have anything in them because either portages unmask 
feature or autounmask created them.  I sort of wonder if it wouldn't be 
easier for me to go back to a single file.  Then I can open it with 
kwrite and if the file has a lot in it, just use the find tool.  I know, 
I'm sure there is some command that can do that but that's another 
story.  Of course I also have several files that do have something in 
them.  Thing is, if I suspect something is in a file and want to look, I 
have to open each file, look to see if it's there and if not, repeat 
with the next one until I find it.  Sometimes that is like a needle in a 
haystack.

One step forward, two steps back.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-)